An Open Letter to John Galt

John Galt is the fictional protagonist in Ayn Rand’s 1957 classic Atlas Shrugged. Rand, who escaped with her family from the Soviet Union as a young adolescent, sketches out libertarian views through her work. In her novels strong, creative, and heroic individuals resist statist and collectivist forces. Galt organizes a strike by these people in response to the dystopian socialist America Rand paints. Galt and the other “Atlases” withdraw from society and build their own free-market utopia (which is never detailed).

As the US government increased its role in the economy in recent months, and especially as officials began trying to cap compensation schemes from those institutions receiving large sums of tax payer money, Atlas Shrugged has seen new interest. On March 25th, a little more than a half a century after it was first published, the book rose to 17th place in Amazon sales, surpassing most books including President Obama’s Audacity of Hope. There is much talk in the blogsphere of a new Galt strike. Rand fan and California Congressman Campbell recently warned:

“The achievers, the people who create all the things that benefit the rest of us, are going on strike. I’m seeing, at a small level, a kind of protest from people who create jobs, the people who create wealth, who are pulling back from their ambitions because they see how they’ll be punished for them.”

Dear John,
I wish I were writing to you under better circumstances. As you know, the world economy is experiencing the first contraction since before Atlas Shrugged was written. The particular causes are not agreed upon or fully understood, but a former, and perhaps the most famous student of Rand’s, who she used to affectionately call “the Undertaker” and also contributed three essays to her 1966 book 'Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal', admitted to an ideological deficiency that contributed to the crisis.

Specifically, as the crisis deepened in October 2008, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan acknowledged his libertarian bias against regulation was “flawed” as it assumed financial institutions would, without the compulsion of the government, protect shareholder value and investments. Surely this represents a stunning reversal. Consider what Greenspan said in 2005 that captures the essence of the libertarian thinking: “private regulation generally has proved far better at constraining excess risk-taking than government regulation.”

When Greenspan was sworn in as the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors in 1974, Rand stood by his side. However, it is true that over the course of time, Greenspan seemed to distance himself from Rand. For example, in his essays with her, Greenspan appeared to be skeptical of central banks and an advocate of the gold standard. As the head of the Federal Reserve, of course, Greenspan found it difficult to operationalize such views. While Greenspan’s star has dimmed, his volte-face should give you pause.

The major protagonists in Rand’s fiction, such as yourself John, were idealized characters, like Nietzsche’s superman. Your creator gave you perfect knowledge and rationality, but real people do not seem so blessed. In fact, this is a significant difference between your and Rand’s views and those of the Austrian and Chicago free-market schools.

They understand that our knowledge, our information set, is fundamentally incomplete. And as Greenspan said, “We have to do our best but not expect infallibility or omniscience.” The significance of the market is not really for perfect people like you, but rather for coordinating and aggregating the limited knowledge that we, actual people, possess. Moreover, the insights from political science, psychology and behavioral finance suggest that rationality, like knowledge itself, is bounded.

Rand praises the “virtue of selfishness”, but many of the latter-day Galt wannabes see this as a justification for narcissism and self-aggrandizement; a clash not of civilizations but of self-interest. Rand, who maintained that “the rational interests of men do not clash—that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them”, would be rolling over in her grave if she knew that her work was being so distorted.

Yet there is something about the extreme individualism that Rand espouses, dare one say, unnatural You and your small band of demigod cohorts could exist, if such a word has meaning to a figment of a well developed imagination, strictly on your own. But real people cannot and do not.

Oh guys like Thoreau could go be by himself on Waldon Pond, but he was already an adult, having grown up in society. He spoke and could write. Those skills can only come from living with others. People exist more like ants, bees, and other social animals than like domesticated cats or dogs who appear able to live without others of their species. When Cain asks, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” the answer the resounds through human history is yes, unwaveringly yes.

There is also an elitism, which you embody, in Rand’s work that prevents a richer understanding of the current financial crisis. Value is not simply created by the best and the brightest. Value is created by the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker. It is created by school teachers, garbage men, nurses, social workers, taxi drivers and janitors.

The people who currently want to strike in your name are not these people. Many of the people who fancy themselves modern day Galts are not profit-seeking entrepreneurs, but rent-seekers who have benefited from the manipulation of the rules. They did not create wealth or shareholder value. They destroyed it in historic proportions. They did not take risk. They gambled with other people’s money and lost big.

They are reluctant to accept the consequences of their actions and this is antithetical to Rand’s ideal. Nothing is being taken from them, quite the opposite. Their businesses, which are integral to the modern economy, are on the dole. It is helping preserve their jobs and many others. And they are chafing under the conditions that are being attached to access to the public watering hole.

They do not want to accept responsibility for what they have done. Instead they want to blame sub-prime borrowers for the mess. Sub-prime mortgages accounted for about 10% of the $14 trillion mortgage market. Yes there was some deception on the part of some borrowers, but it was marginal at most. The vast majority of sub-prime borrowers continue to service their obligations. The tens of trillions of dollars that has been lost cannot rightfully be placed at their feet. The vast majority of these loans have not failed.

Wall Street executives and their relatively small number of senior decision makers are not the victims they are claiming to be. For every one of them there are hundreds, if not thousands, of employees in these firms that do not receive the compensation or perks commonly associated with banking and insurance firms.
The financial crisis is not the result of sub-prime borrowers. Their losses are absorbable in an economy of America’s size. The real culprit was leverage. Many large financial institutions took on leverage in such proportions that the smallest setback wiped them out.

One last thing: don’t confuse the criticism of Rand with a left-wing rant. Just as Rand had a problem with many American conservatives, including Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, many conservatives also reject Rand. Not only did her virulent atheism alienate some conservatives, but her entire body of her work was often rejected by them. Consider the late William F. Buckley, the founder of the conservative National Review wrote: “Ayn Rand is dead. So, incidentally, is the philosophy she sought to launch dead; it fact it was still born.”

So John, if some rent-seeking, paper-shuffling, value-destroying people try to join you in Galt’s Gulch, know that they are not on strike, but have been fired for gross incompetence.

Disclosure: no positions

Comments

[Buckoux:]

The Great Recession 2007-200? is the result of John Galt attending Harvard Business School and, as a consequence, deserting his libertarian principles that also include personal restraint. John Galt lost his way.

"When Cain asks, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” the answer the resounds
through human history is yes, unwaveringly yes."

Always left out of this parable is the fact that Cain killed his brother, Abel. The first born of man was also the first murderer. We are not, and never have been, a "noble species". It is this pretense otherwise that is the cause of our miseries.

Apr 05 12:45 PM

[fireball:]

if you read rand you missed her points. i am one who has withdrawn. i have cheated no one ever. i find no need to move to some enclave. my guilt is working hard, profiting from my labors and ideas, living frugally within my means, and helping my deserving friends family and acquaintencs when i could. that i am disgusted with the contrived degeneration of the constitutional republic into the whatever this welfare state should be labeled is the honest disgust and non-volent resistance to more corporate (?) statism. i am weary of those who wish to justify the failed system, socialism, by whatver new label it comes under. i am even more weary of the i don't care how hard you worked or the sacrifices made you have it, i want it, and it's not fair, so i vote to take it from you to give to me. i am weary of the mind-set that excellence is somehow wrong.
am i addressing a reese here?

Apr 05 12:46 PM

[JackDoitCra...:]

I am not withdrawing from society, but rather, trying to educate people about Rand's ideas. Thanks for your article, but they should read her books.

Apr 05 04:02 PM

[Jeffery Small:]

I just wanted to add my appreciation and support to the many creative responses to Mr. Chandler's serious misunderstanding of the ideas contained in Atlas Shrugged. For those activists among you who wish to make a "John Galt" statement and register your protest with the current philosophy socializing our society, and the power-grab policies of the current administration, take a look at my web site at go-galt.org where I am running an "Atlas Shrugged Books-to-Politicians Campaign" during the month of April. Add you voice and let the politicians know not only that we are opposed to their policies, but that be are becoming united and organized. They will not read and learn from the books, but that is a message that they can not ignore.

In Liberty,
--
Jeffery Small

Apr 05 04:47 PM

[wtp:]

Agree wholeheartedly, and admire the dignity with which you address this message. The Galtians need to get over themselves and finally (belatedly) glom onto the fact that they are in the end just another part of the human community, for good or ill.

Apr 05 08:55 PM

[Jeffery Small:]

wtp:

What does it mean to be "just another part of the human community"?

What all those you label as "Galtians" want, and I include myself in that group, is the freedom to pursue our lives as we each see fit, using our own independent judgment to decide the course that is in our own best interest. We certainly see ourselves as part of the "human community". But we each decide with whom and exactly how we voluntarily engage with that community. I am prepared to trade freely with others who decide for themselves that it is in their best interest to trade with me. There is no room for force in that type of exchange. That is the method of interaction that a human community of free individuals uses.

But somehow, I don't think this is what you are intimating in your comment. I get the sense that you see the "human community", not the individual, as the primary. This is is a tribal view of existence that places a rope around the neck of every member of society and demands that they all march to the same beat - a beat determined by some authority. At various points in history, that all assuming authority was a conqueror, a priest, a king, or a dictator. Today, President Obama (BO) and his henchmen in Congress have assumed that role. BO is deciding which financial institutions are saved and which will fail. He decides by fiat who is to be the CEO of companies; who gets to sit on the board of directors; the level of executive salaries; what types of automobiles will be allowed to be built and consequently what we will be allowed to drive. He uses blackmail and intimidation to invalidate existing contract. He decides just how much of our income he will take from us by force, and then "nudges" us in how we should spend what he graciously chooses to leave us by imposing draconian taxes on things he disapproves while providing subsidies for those that fall within his graces. He knows what energy policy is best for each of us. He expects us to "serve the country" through programs destine to become compulsory. And he demands sacrifice, sacrifice, sacrifice. If this is the sort of "human community" that you suggest we need to learn to be a part of, then all I can say is: "Hell no! I'll have nothing to do with it." If opposing voluntary participation in this type of social order makes me a Galtian, than I accept that badge with honor.

When you say, "for good or ill", you seem to be saying it's a necessity either way. Well, I think there is a big difference between the "good" and the "ill". I understand that difference and am only interested in promoting the former.

Regards,
--
Jeffery Small

Apr 05 11:12 PM

[mediapro:]

"WTP" sums up the essence of sensible reaction to an escapist utopia founded on ME suggested by Rand. It might be helpful to other readers to understand the basis of Rand's reductio ad absurdum.

The progression of Platonic and Socratic teachings reached the great schism with the abandoment of Plato's great observation about the basic nature of man as possessing truth corrupted by society. The British philosophers Hobbes and Locke agreed with the corrupted part of Platonic thought and described the only workable social contract as one built upon the recognition that the fundamental nature of man as being selfish.

There was another view of man's nature, however, best expressed by Plato in his allegory of the cave and man's eventual recognition of his true nature, later expounded by Rousseau.

We are experiencing the fruits now of this schism because we have lost hope in another path. But out of crisis comes opportunity.

While most of the posters extolling Galt here express that hopelessness in the form of rather silly revolutionary, reactionary language found in Rand's utopian nothingness, there are a growing number I believe that see the only solution to the greed-is-good view of human nature as a fundamental shift in what constitutes true value.

No, I don't expect the Walmart shopper to suddenly change into that idealized man. Yet, if we relegate the nature of man to the surface conclusions of Hobbes and Locke, then we all deserve the circumstances in which we find ourselves now.

Plato's call for a democracy ruled by philosopher kings may never be attainable, but our present circumstances offer an opportunity. I'm not saying that he was talking about Obama, but we have in Obama a unique opportunity to merge the role of politics with the possibilities of man.

It doesn't take all the monkeys agreeing to change that direction -- only the thousandth monkey to crystalize that change.

Standing in the land of Atlas envisioned by Nietsche and re-visioned by Rand never was and never will be a real world. It's for the lost souls that model their lives after Galt that will be doomed to their own, miserable, selfish world, ultimately silent and alone.

Apr 06 01:08 AM

[Jeffery Small:]

mediapro:

It all sounds very sophisticated, but I honestly haven't got a clue as to what you are saying. However, I do agree completely that the tribalist view or society you describe does rest squarely upon the philosophical shoulders of Plato, Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. However, by placing Rand in the tradition of Nietzsche, you demonstrate that you really do not understand her philosophical position at all. Rand's Objectivism is Aristotelian in its roots and stands in direct counterpoint to the lineage you describe. Objectivism rejects Nietzsche's master-slave morality and see the proper relationship between men as one of voluntary traders interacting without force. The Atlases of Objectivism are not supermen; they are simply men who have realized their full potential.

But let's just forget all the pseudo-intellectual mumbo-jumbo and get grounded back in practical reality. There is one phrase in your statement that stands out as significant, that being:

"Plato's call for a democracy ruled by philosopher kings may never be attainable, but our present circumstances offer an opportunity."

Here is where the rubber meets the road. You seek to be ruled. Call it what you will; a "philosopher king" is as good a tittle as another. Well help yourself to whatever sort of subservient role you wish to place yourself in in relation to your master. I will not stand in your way, nor will I stop others from following you on that path. But leave me and other self-reliant, independent individuals out of your grand plan. We seek neither to be ruled nor to rule others. Can you agree to our autonomy? Somehow, I don't believe that you and your "king", Obama, would be willing to leave those of us who choose independence and freedom, to our own devices. I suspect that ruling us is exactly what is desired, with the rest of the talk merely a diversion from the true agenda.

You can ridicule us all you like. But don't believe for a moment that that ridicule has any effect. And more importantly, don't believe that we are going to quietly be led to slaughter as sacrificial lambs. Take a look around. There is a rebellion brewing between Aristotle and Plato. It appears that we have each selected our sides in that battle.

Regards,
--
Jeffery Small

Apr 06 04:42 AM

[Leftfield:]

"Rent-seeking, paper-shuffling, value-destroying" well describes the overpaid pigs on Wall St. who portray themselves as John Galts. I don't remember Galt asking for government handout. Any harm he did to the economy was by his absence, not his presence.

The candlestick makers et al are not exactly overpaid these days. In the name of free market pay scales the sociopaths referenced above have done more than Lenin if not Marx to put capitalism in disrepute. Candlestick makers in the private sector have not been paid so little in relationship to our leaders since the dark ages.

Good points about the training and backgrounds we receive in society and thus our obligations to our fellows. Wall St. again provides a most unfortunate example of the lack of fellowship turning to a black hole of greed to the point of expecting unprecedented handouts.

I don't think this is all too harsh. Those people worked banks for the same reason as Al Capone: "That's where the money is."

Apr 06 06:52 AM

[reasonmrsmith:]

Jeffrey,

Thank you for defending rationality.

Unfortunately they prefer simplifying the world into 2 sides: the good guys (they, the "victims"), and the bad guys (the others, the "well-off").

They are so wrong. Yet so confident.

-ReasonMrSmith

Apr 06 10:03 AM

[wynand32:]

wtp - I understand what you're saying when you say "just another part of the human community, for good or ill." You know, deep down, that you rely on productive, rational people for all of the comforts that you enjoy, and you certainly don't want those who make them possible to leave. So, they should stay, "for good or ill," just... well... because you need them, I suppose.

Apr 06 10:55 AM

[Robert Vill...:]

Greenspan was wrong. His bias, not Rand's has always been pro-regulation. The current crisis was caused by socialist ideas and, once again, socialism has failed, not capitalism. It is not too little regulation that was the fault, it was too much...too much government telling banks and mortgage companies to give bad loans. Now with Obama in power, we are due for more of the same poison.

Apr 06 10:59 AM

[athena:]

IT WAS LEVERAGE--40 to 1
THAT IS CRIMINAL!
WHAT ELSE IS THERE TO DISCUSS?

Apr 06 11:21 AM

[Jeffery Small:]

athena writes:

"IT WAS LEVERAGE--40 to 1. THAT IS CRIMINAL! WHAT ELSE IS THERE TO DISCUSS?"

Well, if you are truly interested, then I would discuss just who is responsible for leveraged assets of that magnitude. Take a look at an 86 minute talk by John Allison, the CEO of BB&T bank, where he explains a bit about the history of banking and how the federal government's intervention in the industry, extending back to the 1920s has created almost all of the problems we see today, including these idiotic leverage rates that could and would never exist in a truly capitalistic economy. Before government intervention, leverage rates were 1/4th of what you quote.

www.aynrand.org/site/P...

After watching this, please explain why the very policies that created the problems are now going to somehow magically solve them and not, in fact, make things much worse?

And if you want to discuss something further, why don't you first look into the role that Barney Frank and his cohorts in Congress played in forcing Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to purchase huge amounts of of sub-prime loans, thereby creating the market for these toxic assets that allowed other financial institutions to write them, knowing that they would have a ready place to dispose of them. Left to their own devices, no sane private institution would have ever written these bad mortgages on their own. Yes, there were other idiotic things that followed, such as the creation of the Default Credit Swaps, which were simply an attempt by these financial institutions to protect themselves from holding what they knew to be really bad assets. But none of that would have happened if the government hadn't coerced the financial industry to engage in these bad practices to begin with. There is so much already written on this topic, that I don't know where to start. How about:

online.wsj.com/article...

So if you are looking for criminals, why don't you start with Barney Frank?


Leftfield wrote:

"I don't remember Galt asking for government handout. Any harm he did to the economy was by his absence, not his presence."

We agree. No Objectivist supports any aspect of these bailouts. And no one that I am aware of is defending these business leaders who have taken even a penny of other people's money, let alone holding them up as examples of John Galt. But let's remember that the CEOs of GM, Chrysler, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, and so on, did not have even the smallest ability force anyone to give them bailout money. This responsibility for this situation again rests completely with the Congress and the President who are in control of the entire process. CEOs begging congress for other people's money may be disgusting, but it is certainly not criminal. If there were a John Galt among today's financial leaders, you can be sure that he would have declined the bailout funds and publicly denounced them in the strongest possible terms. Unfortunately for us all, no such John Galt appeared.

And as long as we are referencing Al Capone quotes, I'll leave you with this one:

"You can go a long way with a smile. You can go a lot farther with a smile
and a gun."

Now you tell me, who has the gun AND the smile? The CEOs or President Obama? Yes, he is a man of great ambition. Watch your back.

Regards,
--
Jeffery Small

Apr 06 02:20 PM

[Leftfield:]

Jeffrey Small,

Great point that no CEO can force bailout money out of us; it's only done through government. Which is why I'm concerned at the disrepute many find in free enterprise they label capitalism as a result of this. It is caused by bad education by government and crony capitalism between government and favored "private" businesses. That forces the bailouts. Guilty too are the oligopoly-owned mainstream media that is now mostly inert and useless at finding and telling the truth.

Apr 06 05:02 PM

[Leftfield:]

Oh, and, John D. Rockefeller said, "competition is a sin."

Apr 06 05:06 PM

[mediapro:]

Thank you Jeffrey Small.

Trying to shorten the trail that led to Rand's pseudo-intellectual ramblings is a challenge in a brief post.

At least your obsession with Rand is well-thought. Though you see the connection between Plato and Objectivism and thereby, Objectivism to Rand, there is none. To explain the schism, Plato recognized that inherently man embodies truth as a priori knowledge (though he never called it that). The allegory of the cave was to illustrate that truth is the opposite of the shadows on the cave wall that we perceive as real, when all that we need to do to to turn around (go inside oneself to seek truth).

To the contrary, Hobbes and Locke were rationalists and empiricists who rejected anything that one could not "see" using the five senses. They recognized that social existence without order and structure leads to chaos. Hobbes, and Locke especially, since both greatly influenced the social contract we call the United States Constitution, would have never recognized the idealized, solitary man (whether you call him Superman or ordinary man makes no difference) as a viable construct.

In fact, Hegel continued this semi-rationalist/objec... tradition. And Nietsche was so influenced by Hegel's thought, the two are virtually indistinguishable, except for Nietsche's "uberman". The direct rip-off of that "realized being" emblemized by Galt is merely disguised by Rand recognizing the connection and attempting a weak effort to distinguish her Galts from the overlord.

It was Rousseau that recognized the original purpose of Plato's writings and the inherent interdependence of man as each strived to realize his/her true self.

This is the key point of the earlier post. In fact, there are tremendous similarities between Rousseau and Rand up to a point. Each recognized the importance of freedom and choice, but Rousseau also recognized that without social order, man would eventually either live on separate islands ( a la your desire to choose your own world and invite those in that wish to join you) or devolve into tribalism. The absurd reduction that Rand never fully explains is how these Galts actually live in the real world.

I'll ask you:

Do you use the road system?
Do you ever buy gasoline?
Do you own a home with a mortgage...?

None of these nor many other social niceties would be possible without social order and contracts. A true Galtian would never participate in such "slavery". Do you?

Thanks again for adding an interesting voice to this otherwise intellectually dismal site.

On Apr 06 04:42 AM Jeffery Small wrote:

> mediapro:
>
> It all sounds very sophisticated, but I honestly haven't got a clue
> as to what you are saying. However, I do agree completely that the
> tribalist view or society you describe does rest squarely upon the
> philosophical shoulders of Plato, Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. However,
> by placing Rand in the tradition of Nietzsche, you demonstrate that
> you really do not understand her philosophical position at all.
> Rand's Objectivism is Aristotelian in its roots and stands in direct
> counterpoint to the lineage you describe. Objectivism rejects Nietzsche's
> master-slave morality and see the proper relationship between men
> as one of voluntary traders interacting without force. The Atlases
> of Objectivism are not supermen; they are simply men who have realized
> their full potential.
>
> But let's just forget all the pseudo-intellectual mumbo-jumbo and
> get grounded back in practical reality. There is one phrase in your
> statement that stands out as significant, that being:
>
> "Plato's call for a democracy ruled by philosopher kings may never
> be attainable, but our present circumstances offer an opportunity."
>
>
> Here is where the rubber meets the road. You seek to be ruled.
> Call it what you will; a "philosopher king" is as good a tittle as
> another. Well help yourself to whatever sort of subservient role
> you wish to place yourself in in relation to your master. I will
> not stand in your way, nor will I stop others from following you
> on that path. But leave me and other self-reliant, independent individuals
> out of your grand plan. We seek neither to be ruled nor to rule
> others. Can you agree to our autonomy? Somehow, I don't believe
> that you and your "king", Obama, would be willing to leave those
> of us who choose independence and freedom, to our own devices. I
> suspect that ruling us is exactly what is desired, with the rest
> of the talk merely a diversion from the true agenda.
>
> You can ridicule us all you like. But don't believe for a moment
> that that ridicule has any effect. And more importantly, don't believe
> that we are going to quietly be led to slaughter as sacrificial lambs.
> Take a look around. There is a rebellion brewing between Aristotle
> and Plato. It appears that we have each selected our sides in that
> battle.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Jeffery Small

Apr 06 06:29 PM

[cchashadenough:]

As to Mr. Chandler's uninformed nonsense posing as a reasoned analysis of our nation's situation as it applies to Galt's strike, I can only ask: did you actually read "atlas" or did you catch a "going galt" blurb on yahoo news and draw some unconnected conclusions?

attn: Buckoux

Your conviction that those of us who consider humans a noble species are engaging in pretense is enlightening given your bit of brain candy regarding Cain murdering Abel. The First Born of Man was a murderer? Interesting, as you believe that our "pretense" is the cause of human misery. Who, would you say, we should emulate or strive to become? Where did you accquire such an inferiority complex? Perhaps that Biblical hero of heroes mr. J.C.?

If you believe that infernal, silly, inconsistent, and damaging book you seem to wish to advocate, perhaps you should actually read it. As you seem to have read neither your Bible nor Atlas Shrugged, Lets talk about both. Your book's ultimate hero repeatedlly calls himself "the son of man" If the first born of man, as you say, is the first murderer, this is very telling. Christ's utter failure at his stated mission; namely, his messianic role, is historically clear. You and your ilk call this a noble "sacrifice". Had you read the fictional novel you wish to deride, you would know that it is the very premise of sacrifice that those of us who admire Ayn Rand's work wish to wipe from human memory. It was an actual, living, breathing man who was the personification of sacrifice, and that sacrifice inspired two thousand years of repression, slaughter in "god"'s name, and reckless persecution of those nasty undesireables who simply wished to be left alone.

Man is not a noble species? A nation was created on the very premises that permeate the work of fiction you have condemned; a nation that has increased human's lifespans at a rate that was unatainable prior to it's founding; a nation that declared man is competent to think, to create, and has a right to live because he IS.

Every period that was permeated by YOUR mixture of history, fantasy, hallucination, and primitive speculation was dominated by two central declarations: we will think for you, and you will live for us. Slaughter, mindlessness, and slavey dominated THOSE periods.

I ask you, Buckoux, is it man's noble nature that led to those horrendous periods, or those men such as yourself who believe that our convictions are just a pretense?

Apr 13 03:21 AM

[Marc Chandler:]

Much of the comments are ad hominum attacks. If one disagrees with Rand it is because one did not read the book or because one did not understand it.
I not only have read Atlas Shrugged but I have read nearly all of her books. When I was seeking admissions into college when I was just 17 and without a high school diploma, I was required to write an essay on the best book I read. It was Atlas Shurgged. Easy. That is fine for adolescence, but as I grew, read and thought more, I changed my mind.

Few of these comments address my arguments.
1. One of the greatest followers has recanted the role of self-regulation in the financial sector and has called for nationalizatino of the banks to easer the transfer of bad assets.
2. Rand's views conflict with both the Chicago efficient market school and the Austrian school of economics. Neither of course are socialists.
3. The view of human nature as lone individuals--sort or like groups don't exist only people exist, does not set well with me. I don't think people can be separate from human society and be recognizeably human.
4. I suggested that the financial crisis was caused by financial institutions taking incrdible leverage, not by suprime borrowrers. (S has 50 mln mortgages. 3 mln were foreclosed upon in 2007 and 2008 combined. ave mortgage is $210k roughly, and ave recovery rate historicaly 75%,but even assume 50%. 3 mln mortgages=$330 bln. No trillions.
5.Lastly, I suggest value creators are not realy striking. No commet suggested any really was. Getting together with some like minded people to share complaints is not the same thing.

Apr 20 07:52 PM

[Anthony R:]

Asking if you have read AS does not constitute an ad hom. Anyway,
I will gladly address your arguments as stated...

1) Your point partially proves Rand correct. Not that laissez faire Capitalism is the only moral system (really, a lack of a system), but that the alternatives will not work as intended. You can't claim Greenspan was acting on Objectivist/free market principles when he was dictating interest rates arbitrarily. Hell, if I didn't know better I would say that he and Bernie are playing a combined role of Fransisco d'Anconia, speeding up the transfer of wealth to the looters.
2) This is stating the obvious and I haven't a clue as to what point this supports. The Objectivist position is that neither of the 'schools' you mention have a clear epistemology or metaphysics which leads to inconsistencies in their positions. Conservative and Libertarian positions are just as illogical as Liberals/socialists.
3) It matters not what 'sits well' with you. What in hell makes you think Objectivists want to separate from human society? I'll put it this way...I live FOR myself, not BY myself. The entire point of the strike was to give individuals who hold the morality of altruism what they wanted. Once they committed suicide the strikers were free to rejoin society and have their property left the fuck alone with no more scumbags putting their guilt on us for their failures. That is all we want. That is all I've asked for since I was a kid. If someone wants a handout come knock on my door. Don't hide behind a vote.
4) Businesses can (morally) assume 30billion:1 leverage if they chose. Most of them a) wouldn't take the higher leverage if they didn't know they had cronies in Washington and the Fed. to bail their asses out, or b) would simply go bankrupt and cease to exist. Instead, our elected officials decide to loot from all of us to save them. The same goes for the subprime market, $billions or $trillions notwithstanding.
5) A few are striking. I have no knowledge to what extent, nor do you. I am certain, however, that many creators are NOT investing in new projects. Do you not see how the odds of the next Bill Gates of a new industry appearing in our current state is drastically reduced?I went on strike myself a couple years ago to cut off a leech. Why would I take the stress of my $100k+ job when government steals $30k of it and the ex-wife takes another $30k in alimony after sitting on her lazy ass for 8 years? My employer, a large transportation co. went under about a year after I left. Unless the person they replaced me with was a rock star, it was me departing that caused it. (I know it's anecdotal. Take from it what you wish.)

Nov 19 01:09 PM